That is a purely Christian and Biblican interpretation of the issue. If you beleive in neither Christianity nor the Bible, then obviously it will make absolutely no sense to you!

Of course it makes sense. This decree against homosexuality isn't exactly rocket science as far as Christian dogma goes. It's not like we're talking about something as abstruse as the concept of transubstantiation. I may be completely irreligious, but that doesn't mean I don't understand theological arguments.

I should say that many homosexuals I know are still devout Christians. In fact, most people I know are devout Christians. I understand you're part of a community (one of the best benefits of religion), but I think that your particular brand of Christianity may not be as widespread as you think it is.

More importantly, we're discussing homosexuality in a polite, almost academic sense. This is not the way it plays out in the world. We're living in a society where homosexuals in a committed relationship are denied what should be basic rights, such as visiting somebody in a hospital when they are dying. We are living in a society where people are beat to death for being gay.

Theological arguments about brands of Christianity are fine, but lets not pretend they are merely academic. Homosexuals are not free to live their life without the intrusion of people who think they live their life "wrong." This is an election year, we're all going to hear a lot about gay marriage.

This is not a polite discussion, it's an active (and incredibly damaging) imposition of belief.

To be honest, Mofo, I've never understood why we don't have laws allowing people to decide for themselves who they want on their insurance, etc., as they are the ones who bought or earned such benefits in the first place.

As far as gay-bashing, I hate it as I would hate ANY assault on someone's person. However, I don't think it needs a special law, as HAVE laws covering assault, attempted murder, and the like.

Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.

I think that's the most important thing to note in American Christianity and the gay stuff. There's an almost hysterical overreaction to gays, and I find it completely baffling. There are so many other behaviors just as equally or more strongly argued against in the bible (it really does have only a relative handful of mentions), that the singling out of gays by the evangelicals and others in the USA should give anyone thinking clearly pause.

It's obvious something more is going on here. A lot of it is something cultural filtered through the religion, I suspect. Not sure exactly what is going on beyond that though.

There I do agree. Homosexuality is A sin, nothing more. There are MANY sins which get a much greater share of conemnation in Scripture, and the degree to which some churches focus on homosexuality above all is ridiculous and hurtful.

I think that's the most important thing to note in American Christianity and the gay stuff. There's an almost hysterical overreaction to gays, and I find it completely baffling. There are so many other behaviors just as equally or more strongly argued against in the bible (it really does have only a relative handful of mentions), that the singling out of gays by the evangelicals and others in the USA should give anyone thinking clearly pause.

It's obvious something more is going on here. A lot of it is something cultural filtered through the religion, I suspect. Not sure exactly what is going on beyond that though.

I agree here as well....I prefer to deal with people on an individual basis instead of focusing primarilly on if they are gay. Whether I agree with it or not isn't a make it/break it point for me. Besides,I'm sure my gay friends have stuff they don't like about me that has nothing to do with being straight. There I do agree. Homosexuality is A sin, nothing more. There are MANY sins which get a much greater share of conemnation in Scripture, and the degree to which some churches focus on homosexuality above all is ridiculous and hurtful.

Indiana- I don't believe it's just some quaint old book at all. It has lasted as long as it has beause it makes sense. I just can't grasp the prohibtion on homosexuality. I'm also not big on the post Jesus NT.

Indiana- I don't believe it's just some quaint old book at all. It has lasted as long as it has beause it makes sense. I just can't grasp the prohibtion on homosexuality. I'm also not big on the post Jesus NT.

I just have this suspicion that Revelation is no more significant than the Quran, basically. I mean good for them for spreading Christianity but they weren't Jesus and there is no need for any more prophets after him.

I just have this suspicion that Revelation is no more significant than the Quran, basically. I mean good for them for spreading Christianity but they weren't Jesus and there is no need for any more prophets after him.

All of the New Testament was written after Christ's time. But I think Revelations has great significance because of WHO wrote it as well as when it was written. John was the last of the Apostles, indeed one of the last men alive who had seen and known both Jesus and John the Baptist. He would have had a pretty fair idea if a vision that came to him was from Christ or not.

I don't pretend to understand everything in Revelations, but I certainly think it is significant, whether you consider it history, allegory, prophecy, or some combination of the three.

I just have this suspicion that Revelation is no more significant than the Quran, basically. I mean good for them for spreading Christianity but they weren't Jesus and there is no need for any more prophets after him.

All of the New Testament was written after Christ's time. But I think Revelations has great significance because of WHO wrote it as well as when it was written. John was the last of the Apostles, indeed one of the last men alive who had seen and known both Jesus and John the Baptist. He would have had a pretty fair idea if a vision that came to him was from Christ or not.

I don't pretend to understand everything in Revelations, but I certainly think it is significant, whether you consider it history, allegory, prophecy, or some combination of the three.

Oh. The authorship I know you know is disputed. Why you don't mention that fact, to me, is as our beloved friend put it "cherry picking".

The authorship of nearly every New Testament book has been disputed by modern scholars, mostly with an agenda to deny their historical accuracy.

Most of the reading that I have read seems to indicate that there is little doubt that Revelations was written by a disciple of Jesus named John, near the end of the First Century AD. The contention is over whether or not the John was the same John who wrote the gospel that bears his name. While there are marked differences in style in the original Greek between the two works, they are of a VERY different nature which might well account for the different vocabulary used. Frankly, there is virtually NO historical evidence for a second Apostle of Jesus named John whose works the early church would have embraced as canonical.

For an excellent discussion of the authorship of all the Johanene works - the Gospel, the three epistles, and Revelations - I recommend Donald Guthrie's New Testament Introduction. Guthrie was one of the foremost New Testament scholars in America, and a strong advocate of single authorship for all five NT works attributed to John. He also absolutely shredded the ridiculous conclusions of the infamous "Jesus Seminar" a few years back, with solid scholarship and excellent style.

The authorship of nearly every New Testament book has been disputed by modern scholars, mostly with an agenda to deny their historical accuracy. Most of the reading that I have read seems to indicate that there is little doubt that Revelations was written by a disciple of Jesus named John, near the end of the First Century AD. The contention is over whether or not the John was the same John who wrote the gospel that bears his name. While there are marked differences in style in the original Greek between the two works, they are of a VERY different nature which might well account for the different vocabulary used. Frankly, there is virtually NO historical evidence for a second Apostle of Jesus named John whose works the early church would have embraced as canonical. For an excellent discussion of the authorship of all the Johanene works - the Gospel, the three epistles, and Revelations - I recommend Donald Guthrie's New Testament Introduction. Guthrie was one of the foremost New Testament scholars in America, and a strong advocate of single authorship for all five NT works attributed to John. He also absolutely shredded the ridiculous conclusions of the infamous "Jesus Seminar" a few years back, with solid scholarship and excellent style.

For those still paying attention to the original post, the unofficial scuttlebutt is that it is going to be Alan Scott.

If you find yourself asking, "Who?" don't feel bad. He was the original Green Lantern (the one in the festive colors). He's a character, but not a major one. If this truly is the case, then it's a lot of brouhaha over nothing. The whole issue will be about as progressive as Northstar of Alpha Flight coming out in the early '90s. Nobody cares.

By the way, I can't give karma to Andrew for his Martian Manhunter crack, but he certainly deserves it.

Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.